"In many respects, this exotic, chaotic country remains geopolitically undefined. It possesses nuclear weapons and aspires to a permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council. It has a population of well over a billion, and its work force is steadily becoming better educated. It has a hostile neighbor - Pakistan - to the north, and a powerful competitor - China - to the east. More and more, India is a significant player in world affairs, and yet it lacks a consistent profile that it can present to the rest of the world."

What is implied is that India is yet to come up with a compelling and coherent narrative that is consistent across all its communications to global audiences. He also says,

"A visitor to India is certain to be impressed by the energy and determination of people here. Channeled through education and economic development, these qualities are gradually transforming the country and, coupled with the great size of the population, place India at the threshold of international leadership."

I could not agree with Philip more. In fact, I had written on my blog last year about the lack of a coherent strategy. Read these: 


                       "A Public Diplomacy Strategy for India"


                        "Towards a broader understanding of India"


However, these are early days for India's policy establishment and as the conference showed last week there is a commitment to become strategic.


Suggestions/Critiques welcome.


-- Madhur

1. Keeping with the spirit of New Public Diplomacy, it was heartening to see participation of representatives from different sectors - Policymakers, corporate world, diplomats, civil society organizations, students, foreign experts etc -  MEA got it right in understanding the importance of collaboration and partnerships. Nobody can go alone in today's world.
2. Discussion topics, though not exhaustive, were chosen well that tried to capture the dominant themes in PD discourse today globally, including discussions on PD 2.0 and role of transnational corporations in shaping perceptions and 'generating influence.'
3. The tone of the conference was basic. Most issues discussed were maybe 'PD 101' for some participants who have some background in PD or global communications. Nonetheless, there were no dearth of interesting insights for the student and practitioner of Public Diplomacy.
4. While ignorance about PD among some participants can be understood given that it is 'new' in India, what I failed to understand was the lack of a nuanced understanding of PD and its role in statecraft among some academics and  ex-diplomats. We may not be doing it but aren't we supposed to know what's happening around the world in our respective areas of expertise? Thank god the conference happened!

Public Diplomacy & Power: